Announcement

Collapse

Welcome to Moorcock's Miscellany

Dear reader,

Many people have given their valuable time to create a website for the pleasure of posing questions to Michael Moorcock, meeting people from around the world, and mining the site for information. Please follow one of the links above to learn more about the site.

Thank you,
Reinart der Fuchs
See more
See less

Harry The Nazi

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Michael Moorcock
    replied
    Interesting phenomenon of hero-worship and morbid curiosity which thankfully has gone is that of the public-hanging, when a famous rogue was often judged by their behaviour on the scaffold and bits of said rogue were eagerly procured. This process seems to have gone on since there were enough of us to form a crowd. It still needs to be studied and discussed but I don't think it's useful to think it's a sign of the times. It's a sign of how humans behave. Remember Byronmania ?
    Did Ken Russell essay a movie on Listzmania ? The mob has always been there, always moved by certain kinds of hysteria. Populist democracy gives us more freedom just as demographics create more of us. What engaged a smallish number of people two hundred years ago now engages a larger, commercially exploitable, mob.

    Leave a comment:


  • xidrep
    replied
    Diana's unfortunate demise triggered a bout of mass-hysteria that seemed to turn me into a rare voice of reason in a great village of insanity. I was disturbed that we don't suffer the same shock watching fly-struck starving Ethiopian children...

    The celebrity culture is dismal not so much for its current incarnations, but for the drossy aspirations it appears to be instilling in our young people. 'I want to work in the media' 'Oh, doing what?' 'Dunno. Just to get exposure'. Neeeyaaaah!!!!

    Leave a comment:


  • Kalessin
    replied
    Originally posted by Mikey_C
    Diana was a funny case; half royalty, half 'celeb' (I am also disturbed by the growth of 'celebrity culture').
    Aye, it's a sick world we live in where people can become famous purely for...erm....being famous. I mean...there are many who deserve their celebrity status - the likes of Steven Hawking and so on - but we live at a time where people will ask 'Jade from Big Brother', a talentless low grade moron if there ever was one, for her autograph, purely because she decided to debase herself on the television for a few months.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mikey_C
    replied
    Originally posted by Kalessin
    To be honest, I feel that the 'mass hysteria' was more a media invention than anything real, in the UK at least.
    Well, I was at home on compassionate leave watching all the crap on telly and reading all this psychobabble in the bedsheets, so the media certainly did large it up. I do know people who went up to London though. Someone left all those flowers there.

    Diana was a funny case; half royalty, half 'celeb' (I am also disturbed by the growth of 'celebrity culture'). Bit of an 'Evita'. She was certainly the most identifiably human inhabitant of Buck House (I once met the Queen's ex-chauffeur and he confirmed this), but not universally popular. Rory Bremner's somewhat scathing impression certainly went down well.

    Still, if she really did "an awful lot to harm the monarchy", maybe she didn't leave such a bad legacy after all. Can't say I think much of her sons, though. Hopefully Harry will become such a cokehead his nose will drop off and he'll be found in bed with Tony and Cheri wearing nothing but a nazi armband, a rubber gasmask, and a miniature Union Jack stuck in a convenient aperture. I wonder how much Murdoch would be willing to pay for that shot?

    Leave a comment:


  • Michael Moorcock
    replied
    I don't think Diana's death was a media invention as such, judging by what was going on in London -- the millions of people on the street, the incredible smell of flowers (later rotting flowers) and so on. But this isn't a particularly unfamiliar response to mythologised figures, whether they be real or invented. Most people are too young to remember the death of Grace Archer on the radio series The Archers, when the BBC was inundated with flowers for a purely fictitious character. Valentino is another example. Diana became a symbol of peoples' sentimental idealism. To a degree I think she manipulated the media herself, to achieve this affect. As I said in King of the City, she played the hand she was dealt -- and she played it very well. Her mistake was to take up with a coke-sniffing playboy and get into a car which took the tunnel rather than the bridge. But it's clear that the way people see the Queen, who is a conscientious enough head of state, but none too smart and not a particularly sympthetic person, that mythology always trumps reality.
    We probably wouldn't be a Christian nation if it didn't.

    Leave a comment:


  • Kalessin
    replied
    Originally posted by Michael Moorcock
    I suspect their support of fox hunting has a lot more to do with nostalgia than with self-interest.
    That's certainly the root of my own support for fox-hunting, but then I'm a lower middle-class non-hunter. This nostalgia and love of tradition and pageantry for its own sake is also the main thing supporting the monarchy. Everyone knows that the Queen just says what the PM tells her to, but we still love her!

    Originally posted by Mikey_C
    The mass hysteria around Diana's death spooked me completely. Particularly as my Dad died the same week. There were all these people crying for someone they watched on the telly. To be suffering a genuine bereavement and having to watch all this recreational grieving was bizarre in the extreme.
    To be honest, I feel that the 'mass hysteria' was more a media invention than anything real, in the UK at least. I can't think of anyone - family, friends, or just down the pub, who really gave a damn about Diana's death. I know several who were actually happy about it, seeing her as an attention-seeking media creation who'd done an awful lot to harm the monarchy. In the US, however, I have met people who claim to have cried when they heard about Diana's death.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mikey_C
    replied
    Intriguing analysis of Murdoch's motives - might explain why he's gone overboard on this one in The Scum (not in the Robert Maxwell sense, sadly). Can an Aussie become a "Sir", though?

    I wouldn't exactly describe Blair as "Born Again" - he was rumoured to contemplating a conversion to Catholicism at one stage, and I'm sure some of the bizarre 'New Age' rituals he is reported to have practised in exotic locations with Cheri would raise a few eyebrows in Southern Baptist circles. Who knows, though, he's probably a Satanist deep down (no offence intended to any true practitioners of the 'Left Hand Path' out there, by the way ).

    To tug one's forelock, dear Adlerian, is to show due obeisance to a member of the superior class. Hopefully I'm not too far out of line by suggesting that open class deference may be somewhat more common in our country areas. Fox-hunting has deep associations with the landed gentry and has always, I suspect, attracted animosity. Oscar Wilde famously wrote of the "unspeakable in pursuit of the uneatable", and I must confess that I have an aversion to the type of people involved in it myself. I'm sure this is common. It is why the Countryside Alliance has laughably attempted to dress itself as a 'civil rights' campaign - accusing its opponents of 'prejudice'.

    Laughable, because these are people with an inborn sense of their own superiority and right to do what they wish on the obscenely enormous amount of land they still own (the proportion has scarcely changed since the Domesday Book - honestly), irrespective of what that nuisance 'democracy' might decide. So for many of us, its just a petty way of getting back at them (I can't imagine Blair proposing land reform).

    Equally laughable are their crocodile tears over jobs and 'industry'. Did we see them extending solidarity to the miners in '84-'85? The very thought is absurd. And of course, all the jobs and nice doggies could be saved if they would only consenting to go 'drag-hunting', following a laid trail rather than a live fox instead. But that would deprive them of the pleasure of smearing fresh blood on their children's faces. It's this sort of thing which sickens a lot of people - ok a bit hypocritical as they dig into their McDonalds' sphincter-burgers and factory-farmed bacon butties, but there you go.

    By the way, Michael. You've yet to convince me of the virtues of constitutional monarchy. They could easily form the figurehead of a fascist regime - look at Croatia during the war. And what gets to me is that the people we elect to represent us have to swear allegiance to these feudal remnants. I find that downright degrading. It distorts our democracy and demeans us in many different ways. We need a written Constitution and Bill of Rights.

    I also think the monarchy has a subtly negative cultural effect. It sometimes seems like the British people don't quite have confidence in themselves. The difference between being a 'subject' and a 'citizen' is pretty vital. I never felt so alienated as a couple of years ago when the street parties were out to celebrate the Golden Jubilee. Which is very sad, because its the only time people ever bother to get together.

    The mass hysteria around Diana's death spooked me completely. Particularly as my Dad died the same week. There were all these people crying for someone they watched on the telly. To be suffering a genuine bereavement and having to watch all this recreational grieving was bizarre in the extreme.

    I seem to have problems coping with things that are completely irrational. The Monarchy is one of them.

    Leave a comment:


  • Michael Moorcock
    replied
    Well, your experience of Somerset clearly isn't the same as my experience of Oxfordshire, K.
    Rural people DO tend to be more conservative than urban people, of course, because their own interests are best represented by conservatism. I suspect their support of fox hunting has a lot more to do with nostalgia than with self-interest. Again, my own experience is not that most hunts or hunt-followers are working class. Most seem either middle-class or upper-class. Maybe the statistics vary from county to county. Interesting.
    As I touched on in my previous posting, Ad, there is quite a lot of fox-hunting in the US. It could even be on the increase. I talked to a horse-raising land-owner in liberal Northern California who belongs to a hunt organised on English lines. Some hunts in the US do, in fact, practice drag-hunting, which few people object to. Just as greyhounds don't run after a real hare, such hunts don't run after a real fox. All the fun of the chase and nothing torn to pieces at the other end.

    Leave a comment:


  • Kalessin
    replied
    Originally posted by Mikey_C
    A total red herring put about by the Countryside Alliance, this one. My family have lived in the country - a large proportion of the people there hate the hunt: would you like to see your pet cat savaged to death by the hounds on your lawn? Likewise - a great many city toffs are keen to jump in their 4WDs and play the squire among forelock-tugging serfs for the weekend.
    The hounds, which will all have to be put down if the hunt-ban becomes enforceable. Living in the country myself, Somerset seems fairly pro-hunt, in principle at least. 'course whatever the hunt do, the anti-hunt protestors are just as bad. I know a guy who was first jumped by the hounds while out in the country, and then attacked by anti-hunt protestors for wearing a Barbour jacket!

    Originally posted by Mikey_C
    So, as there's no way it can be about animal welfare (it would surely come way down the list after factory farming and vivisection)
    Not to mention fishing.

    Originally posted by Mikey_C
    it must be about class. It's one way Blair can ingratiate himself with his back bench MPs and 'core' voters without actually having to do anything to affect the status quo.
    But the vast majority of hunters are working class! Blair's core voters are the Scots and the urban working class - the countryside is predominantly Tory and Lib Dem.

    Originally posted by Michael Moorcock
    I believe that there is a strong public anti-monarchist feeling which ultimately must force the monarchy to modify.
    Not as much as you might think - while the Queen lives, at least. Prince Charles is fairly unpopular, but both the Queen and Prince William are supported by the vast majority of Britons, as far as I can tell.

    Originally posted by Michael Moorcock
    just as Blair's dismantling of the House of Lords is suspiciously self-serving.
    Interestingly, even the new, stunted, crippled House of Lords seems to represent the will of the public more effectively than Blair's little fiefdom in the Commons.

    Originally posted by Michael Moorcock
    We lived in Oxfordshire in a cottage attached to a farm. The farmer, who had many fowl taken by foxes, was furiously anti-hunt
    Many farmers and similar large land-owners are, since it's their land the hunt is barging across, but many villagers seem to be pro-hunt.

    Leave a comment:


  • Michael Moorcock
    replied
    I'm sure things haven't changed from a few years ago when many Turks would express their approval of Hitler. Even Greeks weren't altogether unhappy with certain Nazi policies, though they drew the line at being occupied themselves. The fact is that the Nazis became representative of anti-Semitism and the swastika, as we've seen from desecrated cemeteries, has become a significant symbol. As far as I recall the Afrika Korps didn't wear Nazi armbands. If Prince Harry had just worn an Afrika Korps uniform, I don't think anyone would have objected.
    When Mel Brooks wears a Swastika in certain films, nobody objects, because the context is understood. The issue is not whether or not someone should wear a Nazi armband but in which context that armband can be worn.

    Leave a comment:


  • Michael Moorcock
    replied
    I'd like to confirm that all the anti-hunt people I know are country people. We lived in Oxfordshire in a cottage attached to a farm. The farmer, who had many fowl taken by foxes, was furiously anti-hunt and when the hunt came over his land would rush out to protest and, where possible, block the hunt. His widow was equally anti-hunt and would turn up at our door to get help in blocking the path of hunt followers and, where possible, the hunt itself. I knew of nobody in the local pubs who approved of the hunt and only one or two who were neutral about it.
    The 'Countryside Alliance' is about as representative of country people as the SWP is representative of urban workers. What I find obscene is Americans who have not only taken up the hunt because they associate it with English landed gentry but who even import red foxes into their countryside purely in order to hunt them. This really does show the hunting fraternity for what they are.
    I believe that there is a strong public anti-monarchist feeling which ultimately must force the monarchy to modify. It's a difficult problem to manage politically -- for practical reasons and because there are no real precedents. Since constitutional monarchy is a pretty good system, with certain advantages over a purely republican system, I agree that the monarchy shouldn't be abolished, but I do believe it should be downsized and that only the head of state should receive a salary and a decent expense account, while all privately held lands and estates should be returned to 'the Crown' (i.e. the state). It would be interesting to read a debate about this possibility. One aside -- Rupert Murdoch and his newspapers have been anti-monarchist since Mr Murdoch failed to become a Sir Rupert. Baroness Thatcher couldn't get him one and Tony Blair can't get him one. Murdoch's papers broke the Nazi Harry story but Murdoch publishers papers whose policies are to support extreme right wing groups. The Weekly Standard, which employs David Frum (who wrote the 'axis of evil' speech) and other well-known far right neocons, is a Murdoch owned newspaper. Murdoch, like Blair and Bush, is a Born Again Christian. If Murdoch seeks to oust the monarchy in order to install an even more right wing 'Head of State' that's something we have to watch with considerable vigilance, just as Blair's dismantling of the House of Lords is suspiciously self-serving. We always have to remember that the Nazis were seen by many people at the time as progressive, young, dynamic, sweeping away old, corrupt institutions and bringing in modern methods and attitudes... They were praised for bringing a new sense of equality to Germany and getting rid of the old monarchist order. Ironic, since they had been supported by nationalists and monarchists in their rise to power. Many of those supporters wound up in Dachau, Belsen and similar institutions. I wonder if anyone is going to insist on giving the Blueblood Brothers a crash course in the subtleties and details of Nazi history. To take such a course might give Harry's 'apology' some meaning.

    Leave a comment:


  • devilchicken
    replied
    After mummy bailed him out a few times it went into liquidation I believe.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mikey_C
    replied
    I note from my perusal of today's Sun (now there's an admission) that Harry has been ordered to Auschwitz along with William (who was in the fancy dress shop when the offending item was hired) - so part of my proposal has been taken up. Now whatever happened to Prince Edward's TV company?

    Leave a comment:


  • devilchicken
    replied
    to attend a foxhunt is to show sympathy with almost half the population of England.
    I would seriously dispute that - I have NEVER met anyone who was pro hunting and I've been all over the UK. Its a far more minor issue than it is often made out to be - hardly the death of a entire industry, and I for one won't miss it.

    Having 20 men on horseback charging blindly across the moor, horns blaring, dogs yipping doesn't seem too efficient a means of population control to me.

    I think William's attendance of a hunt reveals more about his background and upbringing than any desire to represent rural issues. If he does have a sympathy for the rural economy - then I would suggest his time would be better spent campaigning for relaxing European farming laws, that have forced many small UK farmers into bankruptcy.

    If you remember the Dunblane massacre back in 1995 - soon after the government announced plans to overhaul the gun laws, Prince Philip was on the air saying that if you ban guns, you might as well ban cricket bats - as someone could just as easily go into a school and beat a bunch of kids to death..

    My point was simply why are we paying for people to represent us, who only represent a tiny portion of UK society. Certainly if those people, as Harry has proven don't know how to behave appropriately.

    I'm not saying we abolish the monarchy - just reform it to separate those who do a good job in representing the british people, from the layabouts who just want the public to pay for their live of privileged excess....

    Leave a comment:


  • Mikey_C
    replied
    Originally posted by Kalessin
    The pro/anti-foxhunting divide has nothing to do with class. Actually, it's a town/country dispute, with the urban population, who control most of parliament (most urban seats have half the voters of rural seats), attempting to impose their own short-sighted values on the countryfolk...
    A total red herring put about by the Countryside Alliance, this one. My family have lived in the country - a large proportion of the people there hate the hunt: would you like to see your pet cat savaged to death by the hounds on your lawn? Likewise - a great many city toffs are keen to jump in their 4WDs and play the squire among forelock-tugging serfs for the weekend.

    So, as there's no way it can be about animal welfare (it would surely come way down the list after factory farming and vivisection) it must be about class. It's one way Blair can ingratiate himself with his back bench MPs and 'core' voters without actually having to do anything to affect the status quo. As that chap who was forced to resign from the BBC pointed out - watching the appalling spectacle of the Countryside Alliance on the march is enough to remind anyone of why they voted Labour.

    As a side-point - if it's not about class, how come all the quaint 'working class' country sports such as badger-baiting and cockfighting were banned aeons ago?

    Originally posted by L'Etranger
    I have frequently noted a disgusting naivete in Latin America re. H.itler. He and the Nazis are often viewed as those who challenged the Anglo-US domination - which is a lot more "real" in that hemisphere.
    An error made nearer to home:
    Statue of Nazi ally vandalised Henry McDonald
    Sunday January 2, 2005
    The Observer

    An unnamed group in Dublin claimed responsibility last night for vandalising the statue of an IRA leader linked to the Nazis in the Second World War.

    The group said it had severed the head and right arm of the statue in Dublin's Fairview Park in memory of the victims of the Holocaust.

    They said that as Europe prepares to commemorate the 60th anniversary of the liberation of the Nazi death camps, they could no longer tolerate a statue in honour of Sean Russell.

    Russell was commanding officer of the IRA during the Second World War and conducted a campaign of assassination and sabotage in both Britain and Ireland, aimed at damaging the war effort against Hitler.

    Although an open ally of the Nazis, Russell is still honoured by the modern IRA and Sinn Fein. In September 2003, Sinn Fein MEP Mary Lou McDonald spoke at a rally to commemorate Russell in the north Dublin park. The same rally was also addressed by veteran IRA man Brian Keenan.

    In a statement released this weekend, the group claiming to be behind the attack on the statue said: 'Six million Jews, thousands of political dissidents, homosexuals, Roma people, Soviet prisoners of war and the disabled were put to death by the fascist hate machine that overran and terrified Europe from 1939 to 45.

    'Sean Russell was one of many nationalist fanatics who looked to Hitler for political and military support in the IRA's quest to reunify Ireland at the point of the bayonets of the Gestapo.

    'At the Wansee conference, the infamous Nazi gathering that planned the "Final Solution", the Jewish community in Ireland was marked down for annihilation. Having freed Ireland from British rule, the Nazis expected their collaborators to help them round up Dublin's Jews and ship them off to Auschwitz. That was the price Sean Russell was prepared to pay to end partition.'

    It is understood the vandalism took place between late Thursday night and the early hours of New Year's Eve. There has been no sign of either the head or the arm of the statue.
    More power to the Dublin statue-smashers!

    Originally posted by Hans von Hammer
    if killing nazis is ok, maybe killing jews is too, because of what they do in Israel
    8O Isn't this hate-speech?

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X